Question 2: What is this question actually asking?
Question 2
Do you support the Government of Alberta introducing a law mandating that only Canadian citizens, permanent residents and individuals with an Alberta-approved immigration status will be eligible for provincially funded programs, such as health care, education and other social services?
This question appears to be directed at temporary residents such as foreign students, temporary foreign workers, and asylum seekers, but it’s not clear.
According to the government’s website established to explain the referendum questions, the government claims that temporary residents cost the province over $1 billion annually in health care, education and social services. However, it is not clear how the government calculated these costs, and whether the number is credible.
Albertans deserve and expect their government and political leaders to lead thoughtful discussions about which public services are available to temporary residents. This question will not further that cause.
What’s the problem with the question?
This question focuses on the costs of temporary residents without considering their economic contributions and benefits. It’s like a business looking at one expense and ignoring the revenue it generates. In this case, it ignores the economic and community contributions made by newcomers in the province:
Temporary foreign workers have jobs and pay taxes that pay for health, education and social programs.
Alberta employers rely on temporary foreign workers to fill labour shortages.
Foreign students pay high foreign student fees, which helps post-secondary institutions offer a broad range of educational programs to Albertans.
This question is unclear and doesn’t reflect the complexity of the issue.
As written, this question could refer to: temporary foreign workers, international students, refugee claimants, individuals awaiting immigration decisions and people on various federal visas or permits. A voter might support restricting benefits for some temporary residents while supporting certain services for others. But this yes-or-no question does not allow for that kind of distinction or for a thoughtful examination of the issue.
Bundling health care, education and social services into a single yes-or-no question makes it difficult to analyze what savings might be expected and whether there would be negative economic, social or humanitarian consequences. Each one deserves careful analysis. Only by examining each program can Albertans decide what makes sense to offer temporary residents.
Under an agreement with the federal government, Alberta can nominate immigrants for permanent residence in Alberta to fill job shortages or start or buy a business. Is this what is meant by “Alberta-approved immigration status?” Perhaps, but it’s not clear.
The question assumes that temporary residents currently have access to health care, education and social services, when in fact, eligibility requirements are different for different programs and services in the province.
For example:
Alberta's health insurance plan generally requires lawful residence and meeting residency requirements. Uninsured temporary residents and visitors who don’t have AHC coverage will receive emergency treatment but will be billed for hospital and physician services.
Some health care costs for refugee claimants and refugees are covered by the federal Interim Federal Health Program.
K–12 education is already governed by provincial rules regarding who may attend publicly-funded schools. Currently, children of temporary residents on valid work or student visas have free access to that education, just as all the other children throughout the province do. Children of parents who are in Canada as visitors must pay international student fees, as do children arriving on their own to go to school in Canada.
Temporary residents are not eligible for many social programs, including income support, AISH, student loans and rental assistance.
The Canada Child Benefit and Alberta Child and Family Benefit restrict eligibility to temporary residents who have lived in Canada for at least 18 months.
What would be the economic impact if Albertans vote yes to this question?
Alberta relies on temporary foreign workers and other newcomers in many sectors of the economy, particularly agriculture, energy, construction, health care and hospitality. Reducing access to basic services will make Alberta less attractive to workers that employers depend on. It may even create worker shortages in critical areas of the economy.
In the past, the provincial government under Danielle Smith ran high-profile, aggressive campaigns, such as “Alberta is Calling,” to woo immigrants and temporary foreign workers to come to Alberta. This, and other referendum questions, suggest a dramatic “pivot” in approach, implying that newcomers are to blame for lack of services, and increasing costs.
What other consequences might there be?
Health care: Restricting preventive care can increase long-term costs when conditions worsen. Vaccinations, infectious disease control, and maternal health programs often benefit society broadly, not just the individual recipient.
Education: An uneducated population creates long-term economic and social costs. Public education is a touchstone of a free and democratic society and is one of our great strengths as a society.
Social Services: Denying access to some services could create larger downstream costs.
What about humanitarian and constitutional considerations?
Beyond pure economic considerations, there are basic concerns about how we treat people in Alberta, and whether we view things like basic health care and education for children as rights that serve the collective good. Do we want pregnant women, for example, to have no access to maternal health care because they don’t qualify for coverage?
Canada has international commitments regarding refugees and asylum seekers. A change to services we provide in Alberta could contravene those agreements. And restrictions on services could face legal challenges under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or other legislation, depending on how future laws are drafted.
Our view
We are voting NO on Question 2.